Author
Topic: Who is banned? (Read 8738 times)

Right now, I don't know how I feel about the drama, but I do know this:

I want to know who has been banned.

I was (at one time) employed by an online game to deal with their forums and chatrooms. I have been, in essence, a professional mod. And I would like to think that I was a good one too.

I was always upfront about who had been banned. It served no purpose not to be. It cut *wayyyyy* down on speculation and drama. And if people didn't agree with the bans? Bring it on! I'd justify it to the best of my ability (unless asked to divulge personal stuff), and if that discussion gave me new information that changed my mind, well, I wasn't too proud to admit it.

Mainly, I want to know who has been banned so that I know if I still want to hang around. If a good chunk of my favourite posters are gone, then the forum becomes less attractive to me. And if some people who I have always thought seemed like great human beings are now banned, well then this might not be the best place for me either. But I would like to be able to make an informed decision on this.

Honestly, I think that's the personal information of the people who have been banned.

I see where you are coming from, but I don't agree.

Let's say my coworker, Jim, stops turning up for work. I used to chat with him in the break room every day, and now he's gone. Is he ill? Did he die? Is he on holiday? Or was he fired?

Every workplace I've been would have told me if Jim had been fired. I wouldn't expect to be told about the times that Jim was disciplined, or about the meetings that personnel had to resolve the issue, but I would expect to be told (and have been told in the past) that Jim has been fired, and he's not coming back. Not necessarily all of the reasons, or all of the build up to the decision, but at least the final outcome.

EhellDame stated in the other thread that she wasn't going to name names of who had been banned, because if some had been banned unfairly (innocent collateral, I think she called it?), they should be able to contact her and state their case without a big deal being made of it.

In other words, I feel fairly confident in stating "it ain't gonna happen". Sure, I'd like to know too, instead of speculating why I suddenly don't hear from certain people (who was banned, who was gagged, who just left by themselves, who's still around but have chosen to lurk instead), but when I think of it objectively I realize it's none of my business.

EhellDame stated in the other thread that she wasn't going to name names of who had been banned, because if some had been banned unfairly (innocent collateral, I think she called it?), they should be able to contact her and state their case without a big deal being made of it.

But, that's tantamount to saying, "I fear I may have been too hasty when it comes to some people, and I'm waiting to hash it out with them, because I fear that I may have taken action that I can't justify." If that's the case, then my decision may have been made.

EhellDame stated in the other thread that she wasn't going to name names of who had been banned, because if some had been banned unfairly (innocent collateral, I think she called it?), they should be able to contact her and state their case without a big deal being made of it.

But, that's tantamount to saying, "I fear I may have been too hasty when it comes to some people, and I'm waiting to hash it out with them, because I fear that I may have taken action that I can't justify." If that's the case, then my decision may have been made.

Remember that the above was just my phrasing, and may not be accurate. Before you judge EhellDame, check out what she wrote herself in the other thread (I know it's 25 pages long by now, but she commented fairly regularly throughout it) instead of just basing it on my comment. English isn't my first language, so I tend to miss nuances.

Honestly, I think that's the personal information of the people who have been banned.

I see where you are coming from, but I don't agree.

Let's say my coworker, Jim, stops turning up for work. I used to chat with him in the break room every day, and now he's gone. Is he ill? Did he die? Is he on holiday? Or was he fired?

Every workplace I've been would have told me if Jim had been fired. I wouldn't expect to be told about the times that Jim was disciplined, or about the meetings that personnel had to resolve the issue, but I would expect to be told (and have been told in the past) that Jim has been fired, and he's not coming back. Not necessarily all of the reasons, or all of the build up to the decision, but at least the final outcome.

I have never worked anywhere like that. They don't mind saying, Jim is no longer with us, but they wouldn't say he was fired. And I don't think the mods need to tell us which posters are no longer with us. If there hasn't been any activity on their profile, they are no longer with us.

Honestly, I think that's the personal information of the people who have been banned.

I see where you are coming from, but I don't agree.

Let's say my coworker, Jim, stops turning up for work. I used to chat with him in the break room every day, and now he's gone. Is he ill? Did he die? Is he on holiday? Or was he fired?

Every workplace I've been would have told me if Jim had been fired. I wouldn't expect to be told about the times that Jim was disciplined, or about the meetings that personnel had to resolve the issue, but I would expect to be told (and have been told in the past) that Jim has been fired, and he's not coming back. Not necessarily all of the reasons, or all of the build up to the decision, but at least the final outcome.

I have never worked anywhere like that. They don't mind saying, Jim is no longer with us, but they wouldn't say he was fired. And I don't think the mods need to tell us which posters are no longer with us. If there hasn't been any activity on their profile, they are no longer with us.

Same. I actually don't think it's any of my colleagues business whether I was fired, laid off or resigned.

Honestly, I think that's the personal information of the people who have been banned.

I see where you are coming from, but I don't agree.

Let's say my coworker, Jim, stops turning up for work. I used to chat with him in the break room every day, and now he's gone. Is he ill? Did he die? Is he on holiday? Or was he fired?

Every workplace I've been would have told me if Jim had been fired. I wouldn't expect to be told about the times that Jim was disciplined, or about the meetings that personnel had to resolve the issue, but I would expect to be told (and have been told in the past) that Jim has been fired, and he's not coming back. Not necessarily all of the reasons, or all of the build up to the decision, but at least the final outcome.

I have never worked anywhere like that. They don't mind saying, Jim is no longer with us, but they wouldn't say he was fired. And I don't think the mods need to tell us which posters are no longer with us. If there hasn't been any activity on their profile, they are no longer with us.

Same. I actually don't think it's any of my colleagues business whether I was fired, laid off or resigned.

Same here on the work thing. I am pretty sure someone at work was fired a few years ago but work certainly didn't announce it, they just left one day and that was it.

EhellDame stated in the other thread that she wasn't going to name names of who had been banned, because if some had been banned unfairly (innocent collateral, I think she called it?), they should be able to contact her and state their case without a big deal being made of it.

But, that's tantamount to saying, "I fear I may have been too hasty when it comes to some people, and I'm waiting to hash it out with them, because I fear that I may have taken action that I can't justify." If that's the case, then my decision may have been made.

I didn't interpret it that way. I interpreted it as: "Not every ban that has been made is necessarily going to be permanent. People will get a chance to explain themselves privately, and might not want to see their name publicised as having been involved in community-damaging activity." If I deny someone access to my house because I suspect they might be badmouthing me, but allow them back later because they have apologised or explained that they never meant to do harm, does not mean that I cannot justify temporarily denying them access to my house until the conflict had been cleared up. It just shows that I have no desire to deny them access any longer.

Honestly, I think that's the personal information of the people who have been banned.

I see where you are coming from, but I don't agree.

Let's say my coworker, Jim, stops turning up for work. I used to chat with him in the break room every day, and now he's gone. Is he ill? Did he die? Is he on holiday? Or was he fired?

Every workplace I've been would have told me if Jim had been fired. I wouldn't expect to be told about the times that Jim was disciplined, or about the meetings that personnel had to resolve the issue, but I would expect to be told (and have been told in the past) that Jim has been fired, and he's not coming back. Not necessarily all of the reasons, or all of the build up to the decision, but at least the final outcome.

I have never worked anywhere like that. They don't mind saying, Jim is no longer with us, but they wouldn't say he was fired. And I don't think the mods need to tell us which posters are no longer with us. If there hasn't been any activity on their profile, they are no longer with us.

Well, that's a nuance. I don't think I've ever been told, "Jim was fired", but I have been told, "Jim doesn't work here any more". Well, we didn't get him a cake and have a party in the break room, like we did when Mary left to move to Spain, so I'm guessing that means he's fired.

And if I always thought that Jim was a stellar employee, then the fact the he was fired might make me re-evaluate my *own* job, because I have new information about the company that I didn't have before. And if I don't actually *need* that job, I might decide to quit. Whereas if Jim had moved to a new job, or just gone on sabbatical, I would be happy to stay, because the company would be the same place I always thought that it was.

EhellDame stated in the other thread that she wasn't going to name names of who had been banned, because if some had been banned unfairly (innocent collateral, I think she called it?), they should be able to contact her and state their case without a big deal being made of it.

But, that's tantamount to saying, "I fear I may have been too hasty when it comes to some people, and I'm waiting to hash it out with them, because I fear that I may have taken action that I can't justify." If that's the case, then my decision may have been made.

I didn't interpret it that way. I interpreted it as: "Not every ban that has been made is necessarily going to be permanent. People will get a chance to explain themselves privately, and might not want to see their name publicised as having been involved in community-damaging activity."

That, and some of it is technology-related, like if a non-banned person is friends IRL with a banned person and tries to log on from their house or uses an internet cafe that a banned person used, they might find themselves mistakenly blocked because of the IP. I admit to not understanding IP addresses all that well, though.

EhellDame stated in the other thread that she wasn't going to name names of who had been banned, because if some had been banned unfairly (innocent collateral, I think she called it?), they should be able to contact her and state their case without a big deal being made of it.

But, that's tantamount to saying, "I fear I may have been too hasty when it comes to some people, and I'm waiting to hash it out with them, because I fear that I may have taken action that I can't justify." If that's the case, then my decision may have been made.

I didn't interpret it that way. I interpreted it as: "Not every ban that has been made is necessarily going to be permanent. People will get a chance to explain themselves privately, and might not want to see their name publicised as having been involved in community-damaging activity." If I deny someone access to my house because I suspect they might be badmouthing me, but allow them back later because they have apologised or explained that they never meant to do harm, does not mean that I cannot justify temporarily denying them access to my house until the conflict had been cleared up. It just shows that I have no desire to deny them access any longer.

I see what you are saying, and I modify my stance slightly. But how about, if a member is banned, and after a period of time (say a week) the ban is not lifted, then their name could be added to a locked thread which just posts the names of banned members.

When I modded, I would often send PMs to players who were suspected of causing issues which ran along the lines of:

"Dear Player,

Due to Y issue, your account has been blocked. Please contact me within 7 days to discuss this matter. If we do not hear from you within this time frame, *company* will permanently close your account, and your player data will be lost.

Blah blah blah...

TeenyWeeny

Customer Support Manager"

And if I did end up deleting their account, I would let anyone know who wanted to. I even had a thread which named deleted players if they had been deleted due to drama with other players, so that the customers could feel sure that we were receptive to complaints and that we dealt with problem players.

Right now, I don't know how I feel about the drama, but I do know this:

I want to know who has been banned.

I guess you'll have to live with being disappointed. We don't typically publish who has been gagged or banned out of respect for the fact that 1) sometimes mistakes are made and need to be corrected, 2) people do apologize, the matter is settled and they go on as if nothing had happened, and 3) I feel it is important to give people the dignity of a quiet exit even if they choose to not go quietly.

Besides, it is none of your business. If it were your business, you'd know who was moderated because you had a friendship with them outside of the forum.

(Hmm, I like what I wrote....I think I'll add it to the forum rules, too. )